Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

stillwaiting

(3,795 posts)
8. Does that mean that corporate lawyers on their corporate court get to decide?
Sun Feb 1, 2015, 07:39 AM
Feb 2015

NOT state governments perhaps?

The investor-state dispute settlement is so ridiculously egregious.

I can't believe that so many politicians are advocating for this.

It also seems from the language used that countries must simply make a "commitment" to do certain things or take "initiative" to do other things. There is no firm language used that would REQUIRE countries to have to do these things or else face consequences, and I don't think that's an accident.

Speaking of which, what are the consequences for failure to adhere to these poorly defined goals? And, what enforcement mechanism would exist to ensure objectives were being met?

There's just so very much wrong here that I can't believe anyone would support it (unless they were part of the financial elite, would get well compensated for it, and simply don't care about the potential impact on average Americans and average global citizens).

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

From what I gather, Newest Reality Jan 2015 #1
"subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism as other obligations in TPP" nenagh Jan 2015 #2
If people could only understand that what that means is not good for America JDPriestly Jan 2015 #4
The second paragraph- commitments to effectively enforce domestic environmental laws... nenagh Feb 2015 #7
The terrible catch is that a court that does not answer to our Congress or to us as a people JDPriestly Feb 2015 #13
Wonderful reply. nenagh Feb 2015 #15
Does that mean that corporate lawyers on their corporate court get to decide? stillwaiting Feb 2015 #8
I've just read the portion of the TPP from the above... nenagh Feb 2015 #9
Opposition to the TPP becomes very easy for me when considering ISDS. stillwaiting Feb 2015 #10
"It's like the beginning stages of a nightmarish dystopic sci-fi film." Dragonfli Feb 2015 #17
Exactly. nt Mnemosyne Jan 2015 #3
Thanks for posting and the links. Bookmark. JEB Jan 2015 #5
The melding of corporation and state. Ruling class government corporate corruption extraordinaire. L0oniX Jan 2015 #6
K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations! Enthusiast Feb 2015 #11
kick navarth Feb 2015 #12
Why do they have to 'seek' any of this? We HAVE LAWS, period. Clearly the rhetoric is telling us sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #14
I know of one Duer that not only uses this rhetoric as "proof" of the Benevolence of the TTP Dragonfli Feb 2015 #16
Thank you very much for that. How refreshing to hear after coming from threads that rhett o rick Feb 2015 #18
I saw one OP that tried Quixotically to discuss the root cause of the mistaken beliefs Dragonfli Feb 2015 #19
I very much share your fears. nm rhett o rick Feb 2015 #21
Rec the OP and wish I could rec 1, 13, 16, 18, 19... (nt) antiquie Feb 2015 #20
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Populist Reform of the Democratic Party»The Government’s TPP Rhet...»Reply #8